This is not worth this amount of argument. Yes there are a million cool things you can do, but I don't want this to break down into nitpicky disputes over preference that last 4 days every time a screen gets posted. Major descrepencies, sure, but this hardly qualifies.

There are valid points on both sides in terms of wanting clarification and the problem with that clarification undermining the intent of the exchange. I think the more options argument is the weakest as "wouldn't it be neat" discussions shouldn't be in this thread for the sake of tidiness and focus.

The original exchange isn't bad so can we just roll with it unless you've already decided on a different option, VD?

TheLostOne is right. The deeper issue is that the game seems to be making a choice for your character, when the average player can expect reasonable alternatives to be available. One solution would be implementing those alternatives, and that's what a lot of people have been discussing, but it would be just as good to simply make clear that they won't be available by making the player's choice more explicit.

EDIT: Oscar's suggestion was good. Alternatively, "I was paid to kill one, and since I don't work for free, you can relax and put your sword down. I'll slip out quietly, and you'll keep on breathing. [truth]" This, to me, makes the fact that this choice eliminates options to kill the guard or loot the room quite clear, and also makes it obvious that you're making an intimidation check. I think the [truth] is important because it makes clear that you won't have the option to double-cross the guard, but I could live without it if you don't like it.

EDIT 2: Also, I'm intending for the word Truth to be capitalized, but for some reason putting a word in a bracket seems to prevent it's capitalization, and I don't feel like looking up the escape character for an open bracket.

I disagree. At least the initial argument was that choosing the intimidate choice left people expecting to have more options.

Why? You intimidate to avoid an unnecessary fight. You either succeed - and then your business is concluded, or fail and have to fight. That was the original idea. The only problem with this setup is you missing out on the looting action.

The deeper issue is that the game seems to be making a choice for your character, when the average player can expect reasonable alternatives to be available.

My turn to disagree. If you character wants the loot, he fights; if he wants to leave, he has an option to leave. As for the reasonable alternatives, the way I see it, the guard either lives and then you can't go through the chest or he's dead and then you do whatever the hell you want. The game supports these two choices.

What you suggest is to add another layer of dialogues leading to the same thing: kill the guard and loot or leave. The original line presents these choices clearly. The only confusion, imo, is from playing too many Bio games where all choices lead to the same thing.

I'm not saying that you are wrong and my original design is awesome. I've been considering what's been said for several days and playing with different concepts, but so far I'm 80/20 in favor of the original design. Mind you, we aren't just talking about this particular design here, but about the overall design of the game, so if someone feels strongly about it, more arguments please. Try to be clear and precise - what you want, why you want it, problems with the original design, and your expectations (and why) when you clicked on the intimidate line.

PS. Keep in mind that your crossbow needs to be reloaded and that's your only weapon, so a guard shaking with fear and dropping his weapons isn't an reasonable option. Same goes for a sneak attack with an unloaded crossbow. We can give our assassin throwing knives, of course, but I'm not sure about that yet.

I liked the idea about killing the guy quietly as you are a deadly assassin of doom, but I really don't see a believable way to pull it off. I doubt that the guard will stop watching you after you kill his master.

Intimidate. You leave advising the guard to keep quiet if he values his life.(No extra loot for you!)

Influence: ask guard to split loot with you. If no, you leave or fight (can this be based on how bad you failed an influence roll? Ie. if you fail miserably, the guard laughs at you, attacking as all you have is an unloaded Xbow; you just fail and he lets you leave. You succeed, and he gets 1/2 the imperials and a gem you get the rest)

Only reason I like the option #3 as it uses a different skill. If not to your liking go with first 2 options. In my opinion.

I disagree. At least the initial argument was that choosing the intimidate choice left people expecting to have more options.

Why? You intimidate to avoid an unnecessary fight. You either succeed - and then your business is concluded, or fail and have to fight. That was the original idea. The only problem with this setup is you missing out on the looting action.

The deeper issue is that the game seems to be making a choice for your character, when the average player can expect reasonable alternatives to be available.

My turn to disagree. If you character wants the loot, he fights; if he wants to leave, he has an option to leave. As for the reasonable alternatives, the way I see it, the guard either lives and then you can't go through the chest or he's dead and then you do whatever the hell you want. The game supports these two choices.

The choices are alright. The problem is that (to me and a few others at least) the choices weren't all that clear. I would not have expected the intimidation dialoge to lead to my char just taking the map and leaving without searching for loot. The slightly modified dialoge (as sugested by oscar) corrects this problem.